• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas de Waal"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Europe

Ukraine: Could It Have Been Different?

In the run-up to the Vilnius summit, the EU could have played its hand better and could have gone the extra mile with Moscow to demonstrate to Russia and the world its good intentions.

Link Copied
By Thomas de Waal
Published on Nov 27, 2013

This week’s European Union’s Vilnius summit will have a big Ukraine-sized hole in it and lingering regrets of what might have been. The Ukrainians will be there, but they will not initial an Association Agreement with the EU.

There is much anguish in both Brussels and Kiev about what went wrong and it is worth asking, “Could it have been otherwise?”

On the Ukrainian side, the answer is a definite yes. Viktor Yanukovych tried to play a balancing game with Moscow and Brussels in order to bargain a better deal out of both. But last week, he evidently made a pure economic calculation: his own monopolistic system could survive without a European deal but could not withstand Russian pressure.

A different leader with different priorities would surely have made a different decision.

Could Brussels have played its hand better? The EU had certainly upped its game with the Eastern Partnership, strengthening what had initially been a rather weak project.

The new differentiated approach of “more for more” which made clear distinctions between what was on offer for the different six countries, clearly incentivized Georgia and Moldova in particular into moving ahead.

On offer were “three Ms” of “money, markets, and mobility” if they agreed to Europeanizing reforms. The flaw in the Eastern Partnership is of course that it does not contain any promise of a fourth “M,” prospective membership, the carrot that worked wonders with the post-Communist countries of Central Europe and the Balkans. But it seems that some major EU powers, notably France, balk at giving six new neighbors that perspective.

The biggest “what if” is if Brussels could have played it any differently with Moscow. Not in the sense of accommodating any of Russia’s demands or watering down the deal on offer, but in doing better diplomacy with Moscow.

Last week’s events were chiefly, of course, a power-play by Vladimir Putin. But Russians also had genuine anxieties about how an EU free trade deal with Kiev would impact their own trading relationship with Ukraine, as well as more visceral feelings that their closest Slavic cousin was being taken from them.

Unfortunately, Brussels is better at writing trade agreements than at deft political diplomacy. But it would surely have been better if they had gone the extra mile with Moscow to demonstrate to Russia and the world their good intentions. So, as Charles Grant suggested last week, they could have commissioned a “joint impact assessment” on how a trade deal would affect Russia. A European official could have given a speech in Kiev, saying that closer European integration in no way affected Kiev’s status as the cradle of Orthodox civilization.

This would quite probably not have affected the outcome, but it might have reduced the anger in the air between Brussels and Moscow—an anger which is likely to hurt the six countries of the Eastern Partnership.

About the Author

Thomas de Waal

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Thomas de Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, Too

      Thomas de Waal

  • Article
    Managing Montreux: Turkey and the Russia-Ukraine War in the Black Sea

      Thomas de Waal

Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal
Foreign PolicyRussiaEastern EuropeUkraine

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russian Indoctrination in Occupied Ukrainian Schools Is a Sham

    Despite a new textbook, an influx of Russian teachers and managers, and an end to the teaching of Ukrainian, the Kremlin is unlikely to have “reprogrammed” locals.

      Konstantin Skorkin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Who Is Funding Russia’s War in the 2027 Budget?

    For every ruble allocated to social policy, health, and education in 2027, double that amount is earmarked for the army, the police, and the security services.

      Alexandra Prokopenko

  • Satellite in space
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Has Weapons in Space. Now What?

    The acknowledgment has sparked fears of a new arms race with China and Russia.

      • Chris  O'Meara ​​​​

      Chris O’Meara

  • Blue Water Bridge with Flags of USA and Canada
    Paper
    What Canada Knows About American Power

    Smaller powers cannot go it alone, but Canadian history shows that integration with the United States will not always be benign.

      Paul Samson

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Stare Down China on Trade?

    The European Commissioner for Trade is headed to China. But after President Xi’s bridge-building visit to Washington, can a more isolated EU overcome Beijing’s stranglehold on critical raw materials? Who will blink first?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.